Sunday, January 02, 2005

To clear up the Khaddam photo misinformation, here are a few specifics. The Reform Party of Syria, Farid Ghadry's US-based, anti regime group, reported a few days ago that the Iraqi and American troops had confiscated photos from an insurgent which showed leading mujahidiin with Syria's VP Khaddam. As it so often does, the Syrian Reform Party was shooting from the hip and confused everyone with false information or at least half-truths, making it very hard to know what to believe from them.

Thanks to Nicholas Blandford of the Christian Science Monitor, who recently interviewed Iraqi offials in Damascus, we have gotten some real facts. The always smart and right-on N. Blandford writes:

Dear Josh,

By the way, on the photographs of a Syrian official, it wasn't Khaddam that was supposed to be in the picture with the Iraqi insurgent.

Also General Petraeus' role in the oil for electricity deal was somewhat overblown, perhaps because of the "King David" image that surrounded Petraeus' nation-building efforts in Mosul at the time. Petraeus himself told me the story when I had some one-on-one time with him last June while we were touring the Taji military base north of Baghdad where the Iraqi troops are trained. Apparently the idea arose between Syrians and Iraqis in Mosul. The Iraqis approached Petraeus and he relayed the request to Paul Bremer in Baghdad. It was Bremer who gave the green light for the deal to proceed (off his own back or w/ the approval of the State Dept/Pentagon I don't know. But interestingly, the deal went ahead at the same time Rumsfeld was spouting all manner of threats against Syria in the aftermath of the war.) There were no Iraqi ministers to make such a deal at the time because Iraq was being governed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. The arrangement was brokered between the Americans in Baghdad and Khaddam in Damascus, so I don't see why that should suggest the VeeP has nefarious contacts with Iraqis. Lots of Syrians have contacts with Iraqis - bizmen and intelligence officials included.

Also on the pics, the Iraqi ambassador (who gave me this info) explained that PM Allawi is hoping the Syrians will see the light and crack down on the Iraqi Baathists in Damascus w/o having to embarass their neighbor by publishing the photos. The ambassador said that Iraq hopes to play the role of interlocutor between the Arab world and the US, instead of Saudi Arabia or Jordan. He believes that Syria needs to be encouraged to cooperate (rather than threatened) by economic/trade incentives.

Thanks Nick!

Now that I have finished cursing the Reform Party for being untrustworthy spinners, let me quote their latest info! They claim that Armitage, who is in Syria today, will lay out 8 demnads, which are:

1) End all Emergency Laws that have been in place inside Syria over the last 41 years.

2) Free permanently all Prisoners of Conscience and political prisoners

3) Free the Syrian press from all censorship

4) Institute immediately political reforms

5) Institute immediately economic reforms

6) Rupture all relations with Iran

7) Announce that the Shaba farms are Syrian owned to resolve all outstanding issues with Hezbollah.

8) The United States delivered to the Syrian regime a list of 55 Saddamists living in Syria that it wants delivered to the US Armed Forces or expulsed from Syria.

THE RPS adds: "The Bush administration gave the Syrians until the end of April to implement these requests. This is the first time that the United States interferes in Syria's own internal affairs for the benefit of helping democratic civil societies and the rule of law in Syria."

We will see if any of this is correct. If it is, it will mean a real showdown between Washington and Damascus. It is hard to believe Washington is truly contemplating regime-change for Syria and not just using it as a threat. No one here seems to believe that anything good could come of instability in Syria. There are no white princes or democratic masses who could save the day. Evidently the Oxford Analytica group has predicted as one of their New Year events that Bashar al-Asad will resign and the Syria People will rise up. This made me laugh. There is no opposition here.

John C.K. Daly and Martin Sieff of UPI write that worried Syrian leaders are worried that the United States is moving towards a military confrontation aimed at toppling their Baathist government, or giving Israel the go-ahead to make such an attempt. Thus "they are pulling more troops out of Lebanon and holding urgent talks with Iran and the Palestine Liberation Organization."

Syrian leaders fear that the Bush administration, facing a grimly escalating guerrilla insurgency in Iraq in the run-up to the Jan. 30 elections there for a new National Assembly, might seek to outflank and dishearten the insurgents by widening the conflict to strike at alleged insurgent bases across the border in Syria.

Syrian officials are anxiously monitoring the appointment process of the second Bush administration for clues as to whether neo-conservative hawks such as David Wurmser, the most influential Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, and John Negroponte, the current U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, will get promoted to even more powerful positions, or whether incoming secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chooses officials regarded as more moderate or pragmatic, like current U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns, for key slots. Negroponte and Burns have both been mentioned as possible contenders for deputy secretary of state.

Wurmser has been mentioned as a possible contender for the key position of assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs. He has been a vocal proponent for many years for "dismembering" both Iraq and Syria as "failed" Baathist states. And in Syrian eyes, Iraq has already effectively been dismembered, and they fear they are going to be next on the list.

The interim Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has dramatically ratcheted up its rhetoric against Syria in recent days. On Dec. 22, Hassan Allawi, Iraq's newly appointed ambassador to Damascus, told The Times of London that Baghdad now had evidence that senior Syrian officials had been giving significant assistance to the insurgents in his country. And only a few days before that, Gen. George W. Casey, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, accused the Syrian government of "not going after the big fish" among the Iraqi Baathists who some U.S. and Iraqi officials claim are now running the insurgency from Damascus.

Ironically, Assad's government has cooperated closely with U.S. intelligence over the past three years in passing on much valuable intelligence about al-Qaida operations in the region. But Syrian policymakers fear that for U.S. decision-makers, blaming them for the Iraq mess has become the only game in town.

5 Comments:

Josh, how long have I been coming here reminding you of just this, over and over? You are indeed the optimist when it comes to Syria, to Israel, to Iraq, and especially to the US. That's a noble trait in general, but I think if you look back on your track record, this optimism regarding the region won't hold up well. Sadly, I am a pessimist in all these areas. You evidence SHOCK that the US is *actually* contemplating regime change in Syria.

I think the problem is here is like the Paul Krugman essay about Bushies noted - they are revolutionaries and it should be assumed that there is almost nothing they won't do. We need to expect the worst and the craziest of the Bushies for the next 4 years, just like we needed to do so in the previous four. Ditto for the Israelis. You, and many others, seem to treat the revolutionary Israelis and Bush-Americans as if they are reasonable like, you, me, your wife, your wife's mother, etc. But that is the whole problem.

The Israelis and the US are radicals - revolutionaries - they lie contantly and they can't be assumed to have the positive motives we assume they ought to have. With the Israelis, I recommend Uri Avnery for a glimpse into the colonial, give-no-quarter mindset. WRT to the Bushies, word is that Syrian regime change is on the agenda for the next 4 years, perhaps even in the first 1/2 of 2005. I know it's insane, I know it doesn't make sense.

But we need to start assuming that even though something is crazy, or stupid, or completely insane, it doesn't mean that these *revolutionary* Bushies are not capable of it. Expect an effort at Syrian regime in the next 4 years as a general goal - and don't be surprised when they try something.

"No one here seems to believe that anything good could come of instability in Syria."

Did anyone rational believe that any good could come out of instability in Iraq, inevitable with the invasion?

"There are no white princes or democratic masses who could save the day."

As there were not in Iraq. Actually, Syria is much worse, and there is so much less hatred for the regime in Syria as there was in Iraq.

"John C.K. Daly and Martin Sieff of UPI write that worried Syrian leaders are worried that the United States is moving towards a military confrontation aimed at toppling their Baathist government, or giving Israel the go-ahead to make such an attempt."

And they are probably correct.

"Thus "they are pulling more troops out of Lebanon and holding urgent talks with Iran and the Palestine Liberation Organization.""

The purpose of these talks with the PLO and Iran being *what* in the context of USreal (US + Israel) attacks? I don't get what the Syrians are up to.

"Syrian leaders fear that the Bush administration, facing a grimly escalating guerrilla insurgency in Iraq in the run-up to the Jan. 30 elections there for a new National Assembly, might seek to outflank and dishearten the insurgents by widening the conflict to strike at alleged insurgent bases across the border in Syria."

LOL, remind you of anything? How bout Cambodia 1970? Anyway, this will certainly *not* either "outflank" (how?) or "dishearten" (this is comical!) the insurgents - it will create countless more of them, including plenty of hot-blooded Syrians out for blood. This analysis fails to understand Arabs. Arabs don't get "disheartened" by such outrageous escalations, they just rise to new levels of fury and rage.

What is really going on with a US escalation into Syria? Blaming. Blaming Syria (and Iran) for the *indigenous* insurgency in Iraq. Blaming by the US, blaming by the Iraqi regime (who doesn't want to think that their own people are rising against them. We need to realize that imperialism and occupiers always blame others for localized indigenous revolts. The Kashmiri revolt is hatched in Pakistan, not Kashmir. The revolutions in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua were exported by the Soviets, through Cuba, not by Central American peasants.

It's always some big power's fault. Saudis are responsible for violence in Chechnya. Cambodia and Laos for violence in Vietnam. And on and on and on.

"Wurmser has been mentioned as a possible contender for the key position of assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs. He has been a vocal proponent for many years for "dismembering" both Iraq and Syria as "failed" Baathist states."

LOL! Now the Zionists have ludicrously parroted the silly failed state by asininely claiming that Iraq and Syria are somehow "failed states"! What a joke! They are "failed states" because they were resolute Arab nationalist hero states who stood up to the Anglo-Zionist World Dictatorship and spit right in its arrogant eye and dared it to fight. They "failed" as "states" to back down and grovel before the US-Israeli imperialist juggernaut.

It really would be useful now, Josh, to uncover the famous essay that Israel Shamir uncovered in 1980 by Israel's military establishment that urges Israel to either attack or get the US to attack its Arab enemies, to promote endless civil wars in the hostile Arab World, and ultimately to break up hostile Arab states in weak, warring, unstable, ethnic statelets that no longer threaten Israel. The report says flat out that to survive Israel has to become an actual imperial power in the ME and put the whole region under her boot. It's a really visionary document.

"Ironically, Assad's government has cooperated closely with U.S. intelligence over the past three years in passing on much valuable intelligence about al-Qaida operations in the region."

Laughable! Now, who do you think is more important to the dual loyalty neocon agents-of-a-foreign power crowd? Bin Laden or Israel real enemies, like Iraq, Syria, Iran and the PA? Israel's enemies trump bin Laden any day of the week.

On Petraeus. I don't know the man. Of all the Generals I've seen speak (on C-SPAN) concerning the Iraq War, he was the only won who impressed me at all.

If he is even better than that? If he was, then he would have downplayed his own role in any effort. It's just not a hero's style to put themselves in the center of the story. I really have no idea, one way or the other.